Could this $65 scope be a real sleeper?

Most of the reviews on this CP 4-16x scope seems positive. For a $65 budget scope its not bad. Of course don't expect quality glass like you would on a Nikon/Leopold, but then again your not paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for this cheap Centerpoint.

For basic plinking and occasional hunting, this scope should be fine. I've seen this scope at my local Walmart and didn't really put much thought into it until this thread. I'll probably pick one up and use it as a backup to my 10/22 and AR15 scopes.

You really can't expect too much out of a $65 scope. if you needed top quality glass, reliability, and repeatability, then obviously you need to go with a higher end scope.
 
Old thread but what the hell.....

In the world of scopes the Centerpoints are near the bottom. Most work, some don't. But there's a big difference between working and being good and anyone who rates these scopes as good hasn't used a good scope in their life. Ever. It all comes down to expectations and 99.99% of cheap scope buyers aren't expecting much. Can't say as I blame them. I'm not one to think you need to spend as much on a scope a you do on a gun but there is a huge difference between scopes costing $50-$75 and those in the $150-$200 range.

Want something for a plinker or that hunting rig that hides in the closet most of the year then a Centerpoint will likely get the job done. I had one that was bad, returned it for a second which worked. POS compared to my Redfeild 2-7X but it worked. Keep your receipt is good advice.
 
I just finished some indoor shooting (moved the scope to my QB78 PCP airgun) and once again above 9 or so, the image is pretty milky. But it does seem to hold a zero.

I just ordered a Bushnell 4200 Elite Series made in Japan. I'm sure there will be no comparison. I've checked out the Leupold Rifleman and the Nikon Prostaff a few weeks back and was impressed with the image quality at the highest power settings. I didn't care for the Nikon BDC (looked blurry and hard to find to my quick glance at it). I compared Walmart's $80 Centerpoint next to those and at the low power settings it did ok but no comparison at the higher power settings. I paid $40 for mine refurbished (bought two from Natchez). I think they were worth what I paid. Hopefully it holds up.
 
Throughout most of the years that I have hunted, there hasn't been much time for dialing in your target. Its best to know how your rifle and cartridge shoot at different distances. Once you know that, then all that is needed is a scope that holds zero and dosnt get so blurry that you cant see where your POI is going to be. I have inexpensive scopes and expensive ones. The expensive ones are used for long range target.
 
This is a 2-year old thread about a cheap scope resurrected by a newish member, and it has regained life. Hmmm. Maybe zombies are real.
 
I have one on my Savage 9317 and it's held up fine even after putting it on my marlin 1895 and shooting a couple dozen rounds of mild to medium 45-70 loads. It's an adequate scope, I don't think you can do much better for the price just don't expect too much from it.
 
it's been my experience that as long as you buy it with low expectations that it'll probably exceed them but if you buy with high then it will more than likely fall short.

I won't spend another dollar on leupold/redfield scopes as long as I live yet I have no problem slapping on Nikons, leapers and barskas(assuming the barska is going on a 22lr)
 
it's been my experience that as long as you buy it with low expectations that it'll probably exceed them but if you buy with high then it will more than likely fall short.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I tried one of their red dots. It was AWFUL. They may well be the best sub $100 scope out there, but that is no claim to fame.
 
I won't spend another dollar on leupold/redfield scopes as long as I live yet I have no problem slapping on]Nikons, leapers and barskas(assuming the barska is going on a 22lr)
Click to expand...

Nikon is actually in the mid Leupold/ Burris category. Defiantly not in the category you put them in. The cheap Nikon's are twice the money and 3 times the scope of the best Center Point.
 
After I bought my first Burris FFII I dont pay a whole lot of attention to many other scopes in that price range. I like their newer Fullfield E1 even better simply because of the magnification adjustment ring, instead of the whole rear part of the scope turning on the FFII. For $150 a better scope cannot be found.
 
I will chime in here, center point scopes are manufactured to air gun recoil specs.

Having been a long time air gunner (actually anything with a trigger)
A high powered spring air gun will shoot loose MANY high dollar scopes.
Leopold, Nikon and others.

While the optics may not ne as great as those other names, the build quality, and recoil absorption is.

Just google air gun recoil, the recoil impulse is VERY different on air guns, and extremely harsh.

They even have to install recoil blocks on the scope rails to keep the mounts from "walking" over time.

Just thought I would throw in my penny's worth.

45 Bravo
 
n5lyc, you are exactly right about airgun recoil. I had a spring piston (Gamo) that the scope mount would work it's way off of the gun every time I mounted it in about 100 shots. I eventually had to drill through the receiver and use a one piece mount that had a stopping pin that went down through the mount and into the receiver. This did the trick. No more walking and the harsh spring bounce back and forth (recoil) is no longer knocking the scope (centerpoint 3-9x40 that came free on another airgun) out of zero.
 
I just got a Bushnell Elite 4200 in 2.5-10x40 and I had a chance to compare it side by side. It's sunny out so not exactly the time to compare... I'll do it again at dusk at some point. But here's what I found.

I could immediately see that the Bushnell Elite has better image quality. If it were a camera lens, there'd be quality differences in the resulting pictures that were noticeable. But it wasn't like, wow the Centerpoint is bad in comparison. It's just the Bushnell looked noticeably better (not night and day but definitely brighter and clearer). For shooting or hunting, I can see no problem with the CP's image quality, it's very good as far as I'm concerned and I like the Adjustable Objective for a nice sharp focus at varrying distances. Dusk and Dawn could be another story in image quality. I'd not doubt there will be quite an edge to the Bushnell in very low light although I will say I've shot a squirrel or two (head shots) at dusk with the CP and it's done just fine.

I could see some minor artifacts/reflections in the Centerpoint from the sun. It wasn't enough distraction to be a problem but I could see them. With the wrong sun angle, I'm sure the CP could be unusable. I haven't had a real bad situation to compare the two in yet but these minor artifacts weren't visible on the Elite 4200.

The Centerpoint actually wins hands down in one department so far and that happens to be what I use a scope for most often... indoor range 10 yard bullseye shooting with a PCP air rifle (QB78). With both scopes each on 10 power (max for the Bushnell) I could barely distinguish edges on the target. Actually, it was so blurred out of focus I could hardly tell what I was looking at. The CP focuses tack sharp at 10 yards. I'm sure the reason here is the Adjustable Objective. At 10 yards I could only use the Bushnell at 6 power and still have a sharp image. This is no good for me when it comes to close up target shooting. I shoot much better groups at high magnification. Groups at 4 power were about nickel size where at 10 or 12 on the CP scope, I can consistently shoot dime size or smaller and occassionally I shoot 2 or 3 through a single .177 pellet hole. With regular Crosman wadcutter (milk carton box) pellets, I find that's the best I can do with this rifle. I tried some other brands (JSB Exacts, Crosman Premier, and a few other good pellets) and they're maybe a tiny bit more consistent (same size groups but without the occasional flyer).

Accuracy wise, the CP seems to hold a zero well on this rifle as well as the harsh spring airgun that I have the other one on.

But that's my thoughts on it compared to a 'real' scope. I still don't consider it a throw away as I expected I would after buying a $500 Elite. It's a great scope for the $40 I paid (refurbished). If it holds a zero for 10 years through rough handling and frequent shooting, I'd call it a very good scope. Time will tell there.
 
Last edited:
I have only bought scopes for hunting. If I have to hunt in bad weather I don't want the scope to fog. I have had that happen years ago with Weaver. Also the scope needs to be rugged.

I won't buy or use any scope except a first rate scope such as Leupold. Why miss the chance for a trophy of a lifetime or a trip ruined due to a cheap scope?

For me, except for a .22 for squirrel hunting or such that scope is not even worth considering.

Jerry
 
JerryM,
I'd second that thought about equipment working when it needs to. For me 90% of my shooting is indoor airgun or outdoor 22 and squirrel hunting. For that, these things work just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top